Hey TDN, how is Legend going to handle this. I would image that one coin sold to a MN resident will put you all over the threshold. Do you all intend to register, not sell to MN residents, or ignore the regulation? Inquiring minds...
Of course a public answer to this question may not be wise, then what are your personal thoughts...off the record of course.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
In the "Choose a program" field select "Minnesota Department of Commerce" In the " Choose a Board" field select "Bullion Coin Dealers" Then click on "Search Licensees"
You can then search on two different kinds of licensees. The business' main license, and then the individuals license. In this law the business must register, and any employee that interacts with customers selling or buying coins must register.
A few days ago I talked with the guy taking in registrations at the MN Department of Commerce. He said that he has had conversations with the Home Shopping Network, but they have not yet gotten the application. That ought to be an interesting one to see, I bet they will have many hundreds of "coin dealer representatives." It should be interesting for them, they now have to do annual background check, and pay an annual fee to Minnesota, for people they probably pay very little.
The odds of your mom or relative losing $300K to scammers or sheisters in stocks, bonds, real estate, antiques, art, real estate, etc. is a lot higher than losing $300K in coins or bullion. Go regulate all those guys first, then come back to take care of the coin and bullion dealers. I'd rather see laws against fraud of all types in our finanical and real estate industries truly enforced. No one seems to have gone to jail for the tens of $TRILLIONs of financial fraud that occurred from 2002-2009.....all except Bernie and Martha Stewart. If we can't prosecute the guys that cost the country tens of $TRILLIONs in fraud (Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Lehman, BSC, JPM, Citigroup, Corzine-MF Global) why are we even bothering with the coin and bullion dealers who are insignificant in comparison? Heck, we can at least say we got Martha Stewart and made a play for Phil Mickelson....lol. During the 1980's S&L crisis regulator Bill Black prosecuted thousands of individual and incarcerated many of them. Even 5 sitting senators got into deep hot water. Why not a single soul this time around in a fraud that's probably 5,000X as large as the S&L crisis? So there's rampant fraud in the coin industry that requires immediate action to right the ship and save the state...... but nothing like that at all in the financial, securities, and derivative's industries? ]Text
Libertarian arguments essentially boil down to let the free market decide. Just like we as a people decided on capitalism, we also decided to have a country of laws. I agree that many laws are insane and serve no purpose or are overly intrusive. The sodomy laws come quickly to mind. Our politicians pass laws in response to problems. Do the laws always fix the problem? No. Does that mean we should have no laws? No! We will always try to fix a problem in response to a perceived or real problem. I go back to my original point. Our current economic system allows for corporations to lobby against laws by "persuading" with money, politicians to pass or not pass laws. These laws may or may not be what is best for us as a society on the whole. Usually they are what is best for the corporations bottom line. Not so much they are for the good of society. If our system was moral or just, the laws would not favor the corporations who pay the lobbyists. Is it legal? Sure. Is it a good thing? I don't believe so. Where a problem exists.... say slavery, when a government tries to eliminate it, there will be anger. No one wants less profits. But, sometimes those laws are the right thing to do, even though they result in REGULATION! Let me assure you, the financial planning industry in many cases is just geared to extracting money slowly from people without actually helping them. I have seen this over and over again over 35 years in my tax practice. It is not "rare" to see an estate depleted by banks, brokerage firms, and lawyers. No, I am not equating slavery to regulating coin dealers. I merely make the bigger point that laws and regulations must be part of a healthy capitalist system even if at times the laws are not effective.
This type of Minnesota law will be spreading next to a state near you ..
This is a concern. In talking to "Joe" and "Jane" public, people unfamiliar with numismatic, about this law, some did not see the problem with the law and thought is was a good idea. They analogized it to other business regulations they were familiar with where they thought regulation was a good thing. Once they made this connection, they really did not hear what the MN Bullion Coin Dealer law was about or care to further listen. To them it appeared as just another set of business people complaining about regulations. I've seen this reaction many times in the law. When the audience for the message acts this way, it doesn't matter who is right, the fact is they are not listening or care to understand which leads to the same result. In law, fortunately an appeals court often does listen in regard to the law and reverses, but in public opinion and politics, which can lead to or create laws, the result can be different. And most politicians that create these laws are not numismatist, or have any idea about how the industry as a whole works ...
Tomorrow we'll see first hand the impact this law may have on the small shows as the first MN show since this law went into full effect starts at 8:30 am ...
"Libertarian arguments essentially boil down to let the free market decide. Just like we as a people decided on capitalism, we also decided to have a country of laws. I agree that many laws are insane and serve no purpose or are overly intrusive. The sodomy laws come quickly to mind. Our politicians pass laws in response to problems. Do the laws always fix the problem? No. Does that mean we should have no laws? No! We will always try to fix a problem in response to a perceived or real problem. "
I don't think you will find anyone on this forum that thinks we should have no laws. In the US all coins must be authorized by congress, no laws would mean no coins.
"I go back to my original point. Our current economic system allows for corporations to lobby against laws by "persuading" with money, politicians to pass or not pass laws. These laws may or may not be what is best for us as a society on the whole. Usually they are what is best for the corporations bottom line. Not so much they are for the good of society. If our system was moral or just, the laws would not favor the corporations who pay the lobbyists. Is it legal? Sure. Is it a good thing? I don't believe so."
In your original post you assume corporations are opposing this MN Coin Bullion Dealer legislation. That is not the case as a matter of fact the president of a large Minnesota Numismatic company argued in favor of this law. He even said in his testimony before the MN legislature that he helped write the Bill.
"Where a problem exists.... say slavery, when a government tries to eliminate it, there will be anger. No one wants less profits. But, sometimes those laws are the right thing to do, even though they result in REGULATION!"
In your original post, you were assuming that all regulations passed are good regulations. I think we can all agree that the Fugitive Slave Act was bad legislation. My point is don't just assume that if a politician tells you a law is good and designed to protect consumers, that the law will actually do that. Look at the law itself does it make sense? Ask yourself who is supporting the law, who is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of the law. Are consumers really going to be better off in the end?
"Let me assure you, the financial planning industry in many cases is just geared to extracting money slowly from people without actually helping them. I have seen this over and over again over 35 years in my tax practice. It is not "rare" to see an estate depleted by banks, brokerage firms, and lawyers."
When the whole story about the MN Coin Bullion dealer law comes out, we will have to come back to this. your statement is actually quit prophetic.
"No, I am not equating slavery to regulating coin dealers. I merely make the bigger point that laws and regulations must be part of a healthy capitalist system even if at times the laws are not effective."
As you can probably tell by reading my earlier posts, I have done a lot of research on this Minnesota Coin Bullion dealer law. I have listened to every minute of testimony before both the Minnesota House and Senate. I have studied the provisions of the law and determined who the winners and losers are likely to be. There is a lot more to this law than what meets the eye. I think if you carefully study this bill, you will be very much against it. I think we all agree that their can be good regulations, the problem is this one is not a good regulation. It is rotten to the core.
Another thing you assumed is that the people who are opposing this law are doing so for financial reasons, from my experience the opposite is true. I know a dealer that is really excited for this law. He sees the law increasing his bottom line by forcing some of his competitors out of the business, and forcing other competitors to stop selling to Minnesota residents. I know other dealers who know they would personally benefit from the law, but are still against it. They are against it because they know the biggest loser in the law will be coin collectors, and the hobby as a whole. These dealers are not against it for financial reasons, but because they care more about the hobby then they do about money. How ironic since isn't this hobby all about money.
Tomthecoinguy.... I like the tone of your post and you seemed well informed. I take your points. My point was just to moderate what I felt seemed to be a gut reactions from some of the posters earlier that All government is bad, all regulations hurt business. You know, the black and white thinking. Too many people today are in love with slogans and don't try to actually be constructive when there is a problem. Although I sympathize with that sentiment when bad laws are passed, I wanted to make the point that there are regulations and laws which do serve a purpose and work, sometimes. H Ross Perot said we should get under the hood and fix problems. Try them out in test markets and if they work, do it nationally. I agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, politicians almost never do this. It is our loss as citizens. As I do not know many details of this coin law in Minnesota, I will abstain from judgment one way or the other.
As mentioned above, the first Minnesota coin show since the law discussed in this thread went into full effect is going on today. It is the smallest of the 3 monthly shows in terms of # of dealers that attend. Of the 11 dealers attending today, 4 were registered under the law, 3 are in the process of registering, and 4 unregistered and appear to be doing business as usual. Only one out of state sealer attending- he is in the process of registering. While the Minnesota Sales Tax people have visited this show before, the Minnesota Department of Commerce did not show up today. The public turnout was good.
The next monthly Minnesota Show is July 27, 2014- typically there are about 25 dealers that set up for that show.
edited to add: A few collectors were disappointed that one dealer in particular after 30 years or so of doing shows, and now was just doing shows part time, was no longer doing shows or otherwise dealing as a result of this law. Near the end of the show a few collectors that had heard about the law expressed frustration with the law and had concerns and questions about who they could legally buy coins from and sell coins to, including if it applied to collectors selling coins to each other. The MN Department of commerce has been asked to provide examples of transactions regarding the law and which require registration, but they have not responded yet. Some have read the page at : Link and asked the same question.
You have a profitable bullion telemarketing business but all those pesky "We buy gold" places spring up and start cutting into your buying profits. The local coin dealers are also selling silver and gold they get in fairly cheaply, also cutting into your profits as a bullion telemarketer.
You donate $25K to a state Senator and get some people to complain about shady bullion dealers. You offer to help the Senator craft a bill to put onerous rules in place - ones that you can afford to abide by, but the small guys can't. Promote the bill in the name of "public safety". Anyone who fights against this public safety bill is labeled a shady dealer and is suspect in the eyes of the legislature. They won't listen to you.
The bill becomes law and soon all your pesky competition is gone.
How can you fight this? Not easy. You can't pressure the Legislators much as they are on the side of "public safety". Who would vote against that?
It will force transactions under the table, cash only. As long as one does not meet the 5000 limit for selling bullion coins (or where it can be electronically recorded), many will just tip toe thru the tulips.
edited to add: Be careful in trying to understand the MN law from the "Coins Weekly" article linked above as there are a number of errors in it. It looks like it may have been written based on content from the Department of Commerce website rather than on the law itself. Potions of the website are less clear than the law itself. For example, parts of the the descriptions of "80G.07 PROHIBITED CONDUCT" in the article don't seem to match the law itself. Another part of the article that may lead to a misunderstanding of the law is the discussion of " if they sell coins to Minnesota worth $5,000 or more". While that statement is true, it is not limited to the sale. The $5000 threshold can be buy, sell, or a combination of buy and sell in the 12-month period (i.e., add up all the buy and sell transactions for transactions of bullion coins covered by the in the 12-month period).
edited to add: Be careful in trying to understand the MN law from the "Coins Weekly" article linked above as there are a number of errors in it. It looks like it may have been written based on content from the Department of Commerce website rather than on the law itself. Potions of the website are less clear than the law itself. For example, parts of the the descriptions of "80G.07 PROHIBITED CONDUCT" in the article don't seem to match the law itself. Another part of the article that may lead to a misunderstanding of the law is the discussion of " if they sell coins to Minnesota worth $5,000 or more". While that statement is true, it is not limited to the sale. The $5000 threshold can be buy, sell, or a combination of buy and sell in the 12-month period (i.e., add up all the buy and sell transactions for transactions of bullion coins covered by the in the 12-month period).
q]
This was a very interesting article, and I have a number of comments:
From the article, "It really hurts small dealers, he said, because it doesn’t take much to hit that threshold. “If they crafted it so person-to-person transactions were exempt, that would have helped,” Allen said. I think Greg Allen was spot on here. When testifying before the Minnesota Legislature the Assistant Attorney General said that all the issues that prompted the law, all involved telemarketers. In earlier testimony, the Assistant AG said they tried to narrowly focus the law to just address the issues they saw. So why didn't they exempt in person transactions??? That is something he could not answer, it is inexplicable.
Secondly, the comments made by the president of the Midwest Bullion exchange, Scott Hage's, really prove the main point I have been making on this board. This law was not designed for consumer protection but to get the little guy, Hage's competition, out of business. From the NN article above,'Hage said it would have a good effect on numismatic business in Minnesota. “I think its going to keep people out of the business who probably shouldn’t be in the business in the first place,” Hage said. A dealer who can’t afford to be bonded probably shouldn’t be in the business anyway, Hage said.'
I have a lot to say about another one of Greg Allen's comments, '“In talking with local dealers, particularly small dealers and some large dealers, I heard them repeat what they thought the law says and, compared to what I think the law says, there’s confusion,” Allen said.' I thing this quote from Greg is also right on. I would add that a lot of that confusion is coming from the very poor wording of the law, and the use of contradictory and vague language. Not only are the dealers confused, so is the Department of Commerce, I know a dealer that asked them the same question multiple times, and got a different answer each time.
The part of the law that seems to be creating the most confusion is the part that exempts coin shows. Specifically, Minn. Stat. 80G.1 Sub 3.5, of the law specially exempts from all provisions of the law, "a person who engages only in transactions at occasional trade shows where the consumer is present and the transaction is made at the trade show"
Some dealers think this means if you do more than 2 shows a year, you have to register, some think it is a different number. Still others think both of those interpretations are wrong, because the "occasional" is modifying the tradeshow. They reason this means a dealer can do any number of different coin shows, just so long as the particular operator of the coin show only runs the show on occasion. If you interpret this provision using proper grammatical constructs, this last interpretation would be correct. Of course ether interpretation is irrelevant unless you know what "occasional" means.
The law does not specifically define the term "occasional." When the Department of Commerce was first asked about this at a dealer meeting last October, they said they did not know yet, but if you setup just 2 times a year you would be fine. Later they said you are fine just so long as the show is not something that is set up continuously. When the final guidance came out on their website, they just said, look in the dictionary to see what occasional means. So they basically said they are not going to provide any guidance on what that means. Early on they were clearly tossing around ideas to determine how to interpret "occasional" but later, probably after consulting with the department lawyers, they decided the law does not allow them to set a specific number to "occasional." Now if the department does not know what "occasional" means, than how are they supposed to enforce that against someone? The answer is they cannot. How is someone going to know if they do too many shows or do shows that are organized too frequently? They answer is they cannot know ahead of time.
If the Department of Commerce tried to prosecute a dealer because they did too many coin shows, or a coin show that took place too often, it would be a clear, text book, example of violating someone's 5th and 14th amendment due process rights. The courts have time and time again struck down laws, if a reasonable person cannot determine what they need to do to comply. The Department of Commerce knows this, that is why they are not going to waste any time trying to enforce this against a dealer that just does coin shows, and is not registered with them. The last thing they want is a test case for this law to hinge on what "occasional" means. They know if the test case did, they would run a serious risk of the whole law being struck down on due process grounds.
The "occasional" issue is just one example of the vague and contradictory language in the law. Another example is the use of the word, "consumer." Similar to the above issue the Department of Commerce punted and said look in the dictionary for the definition of "consumer." The problem is Webster dictionary defines consumer as, "a person that buys goods." "Consumer." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 July 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumer>, yet provisions of the law talk about a coin dealer "buying" from a consumer. What??? If you buy from someone, they are not a consumer be definition, this law makes no sense.
The problem is the confusion is causing a lot of problems in the Minnesota coin industry. Many dealers both small and large have folded up shop. Their have also been a lot of dealer who have stayed away from coin shows, even though the law exempts coin shows it is the perception that matters. I am confident this law will be challenged, and eventually struck down on any number of grounds, but how much damage will be done before that happens? I also wonder how much money this law will cost the taxpayers of Minnesota. When this law is stuck down, the state of Minnesota will likely be responsible for all the attorney's fees on both sides of the case. That is what happened a few years back when Minnesota tried to regulate the video game industry. How much of a hit will the taxpayers have to take, just because the legislature and the Attorney General, don't know how to write a law that can hold up to a constitutional test.
Of course you will need to study the facts and come up with your own conclusion, but these are mine.
Spent some time in France. The citizens follow a simple rule. If there is a law they don't like they IGNORE it! I loved it! For all the gruff they get from us for being wacky. I love their @$%@$% you to the policies dictated down from above.
The MN Department of Commerce is in the process of identifying unregistered dealers that they believe fall under the law. I became aware of two instances yesterday where MN Department of Commerce sent e-mails about activity they found, referenced the law, included a Tesseen Warning letter, and asked the recipient to contact them. Before posting, I waited to see copies of the e-mail and Tesseen Warning letter to verify the content.
Has anyone else heard about anyone receiving a similar e-mail?
If anyone gets any verifiable evidence of this please contact ICTA immediately. You can also send it to me and I can make sure the right people get it.
If anyone gets any verifiable evidence of this please contact ICTA immediately. You can also send it to me and I can make sure the right people get it.
<< <i>I read about this law recently, and it sounds like they used a nuke instead of a sniper to solve a problem. They surely could have written this law in such a way that it would have shut down the bad guys, and not the hobby as a whole. They should have tailored this to stop those idiot national dealers who sell tribute pieces, clad in 14 microns of pure 24k gold.
The ones who advertise that their tribute buffaloes are normally sold at the National Collectors Mint (small print next to this will say "in no way affiliated with the national government or the US Mint") for $50 apiece. However, during this limited time offer you can get get your tribute pieces for a mere $9.99, plus shipping, processing, packaging and handing ($9.99 per coin for each of those items - shipping, processing, packaging and handling). Limit for this limited time offer is 5 tribute pieces per household. Don't delay. If you are unsatisfied for any reason, just return the coin unopened, and we will refund the purchase price, you just pay shipping, processing, packaging and handling, and a 15% restocking fee. Additionally, you will be sent a National Collectors Mint item each month for inspection. If you do not like the items, just return it within our reasonable inspection period (5 hours). Unreturned items will be charged to your credit card, plus shipping, processing, packaging and handling. >>
Since these "coins" are gold plated, I do not think they even qualify for consideration under the law which requires more than 1% by weight of precious metal content per coin. Certainly a .001 layer of gold on a buffalo sized coin does not equal 1% of the weight of the coin.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Thanks for alerting folks to this, Bill. From a cursory look, it appears to be well intentioned, but grossly misdirected and just plain stupid. Hope it gets repealed. >>
The definition of government as practiced in America...in a nutshell.
A man from that state came to the shop recently and we dickered until he got silver at "his price". Maybe the water boarding method, or an act of Congress will make me surrender his name or his haggling techniques. But for now, I'm sworn to secrecy…. that *&^#%@$
<< <i>I am not intending to make a controversial post but here is my thought on the topic:
The NRA fights for the rights of gun owners across the country and are quite successful at defending the 2nd amendment. We have an organization that represents the numismatic community called the ANA. I think this could be an awesome opportunity for the ANA to step in and actually make a difference. They should have the political clout to at least be heard in Minnesota. I propose the ANA Board of Governors send a representative to the state capital in Minnesota armed with the inherent problems this law creates. They could also provide suggested amendments that would satisfy the numismatic community.
I hear so many people say that the ANA is a waste of money. This is the type of thing I would like to see the ANA spend some time and effort on. Protecting the hobby. >>
I totally agree.
Laura??
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Does the U. S. Mint have to comply with that law? >>
Technically, No since they only manufacture the bullion and coins.
However, Novitex, the company which actually "sells and distributes" the products of the US Mint, should be required to comply with the law "by" the US Mint.
Remember, Novitex is only a "subcontractor" hired by the US Mint to distribute its products. Employees of Novitex are NOT US Government employees such as those the work for the Treasury Department.
Back in 2005, the distribution company contracted by the US Mint was located in Memphis Tennessee. In 2006, a new contract was implemented with PBGS (Pitney-Bowes Government Services) out of Plainview, Indiana. PBGS was recently renamed to Novitex.
Edited isnce I'm too used to typing PCGS instead of PBGS.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>“The origin of this law was a reaction by the Attorney General’s office to articles written in the Star Tribune,” Orr said. “The articles were about people being ripped off when looking to buy coins. The articles labeled them as bad coin dealers when they were telemarketers. Not one was a coin store or dealer who sold openly. If it wasn’t for the articles, there would be no legislation.” >>
Another reason I have a strong dislike of Journalists who do their research but have absolutely no idea about what they are writing about!
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>The MN Department of Commerce is in the process of identifying unregistered dealers that they believe fall under the law. I became aware of two instances yesterday where MN Department of Commerce sent e-mails about activity they found, referenced the law, included a Tesseen Warning letter, and asked the recipient to contact them. Before posting, I waited to see copies of the e-mail and Tesseen Warning letter to verify the content.
Has anyone else heard about anyone receiving a similar e-mail? >>
If anyone is curious as to what a Tennessen Warning Letter is, I found this description on the Minnesota Department of Administration's Information Policy Analysis Division (ipad) website.
<< <i>Does the U. S. Mint have to comply with that law? >>
Technically, No since they only manufacture the bullion and coins.
However, Novitex, the company which actually "sells and distributes" the products of the US Mint, should be required to comply with the law "by" the US Mint.
Remember, Novitex is only a "subcontractor" hired by the US Mint to distribute its products. Employees of Novitex are NOT US Government employees such as those the work for the Treasury Department.
Back in 2005, the distribution company contracted by the US Mint was located in Memphis Tennessee. In 2006, a new contract was implemented with PBGS (Pitney-Bowes Government Services) out of Plainview, Indiana. PCGS was recently renamed to Novitex. >>
This is an interesting point, but I am not sure the US Mint is in the clear. Do they have any involvement at all with the sales process? I would guess they do since when I order, I am ordering from a ".gov" url. Anyone have any insight as to what point in the ordering process I am dealing with the mint, and at what point I am dealing with a contractor?
<< <i>Does the U. S. Mint have to comply with that law? >>
Technically, No since they only manufacture the bullion and coins.
However, Novitex, the company which actually "sells and distributes" the products of the US Mint, should be required to comply with the law "by" the US Mint.
Remember, Novitex is only a "subcontractor" hired by the US Mint to distribute its products. Employees of Novitex are NOT US Government employees such as those the work for the Treasury Department.
Back in 2005, the distribution company contracted by the US Mint was located in Memphis Tennessee. In 2006, a new contract was implemented with PBGS (Pitney-Bowes Government Services) out of Plainview, Indiana. PCGS was recently renamed to Novitex. >>
This is an interesting point, but I am not sure the US Mint is in the clear. Do they have any involvement at all with the sales process? I would guess they do since when I order, I am ordering from a ".gov" url. Anyone have any insight as to what point in the ordering process I am dealing with the mint, and at what point I am dealing with a contractor? >>
dot gov or not, when you contact the US Mint through that website, you're contacting a government contractor that actually works for Novitex.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I visited three pawn shops here in Minnesota on Friday. The first one normally has a fair number of coins, but Friday they did not have a single coin out. I chatted with the owner, and at the end of June he got a call from the Department of Commerce reminding him about the new law. His response is he will no longer sell coins, it will just not be worth it for him financial, and due to the added expense and paper work. The background checks for all his employees were not an issue because he was already licensed as a pawn shop, a gold buyer, and as a Federal Firearms dealer. I think it speaks volumes on just how burdensome the law is that he is just going to stop selling coins. How ironic someone is licensed to buy/sell guns, buy/sell jewelry, but cannot buy/sell coins. Didn't realize coins were so dangerous.
The next shop I stopped at was a big regional chain in our area, (26 locations in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin). I had noticed on-line that they had the Coin Bullion Dealer license, so I figured they would be selling coins there. When I went there and asked for coins, but the person their said the only person in the store authorized to show or sell coins was out, so I would have to try again on a different day. See did add that others in her store would be authorized at some point but they first had to "go through training."
The third shop I went to was owned by a major national pawn chain. They had a 1/10 ounce maple for sale, and a pendant with a 1/20 ounce isle of Man gold coin in it. I asked the manager what he thought of the new coin bullion dealer law, he said that it was a good idea that helped protect consumers. He added that all he had to do was some added receipt requirements. I asked about the annual license, and background checks, he had to get for all of his employee's. He got a blank look on his face, he clearly had no idea what the regulations entailed.
He got a blank look on his face, he clearly had no idea what the regulations entailed.
I've seen that look on a number of faces lately. Sometimes it is because they misunderstood parts of the law and think it is more onerous than it is; but most often it is because they misunderstood the law and do not appreciate how onerous it is or that it may apply to them.
On the post I made earlier about the MN Department of Commerce contacting at least two sellers, one surprise was that the offers for sale they flagged were well below the $5000 12-month combined purchases and sales, and alone would not require registration. The letter said they wished to discuss the seller's situation relative to the law.
It might be land of 10,000 lakes (It's where the Los Angeles Lakers got their name because the team was once located in Minneapolis.), but it is fast becoming a desert for numismatic hobby. We must strive to make sure that the cancer of laws like this does not spread.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
We must strive to make sure that the cancer of laws like this does not spread.
Yes, let's hope it does not spread, and that this MN law gets reigned in or repealed.
A number of suggestions to focus the law more on the problem area highlighted for its purpose have been provided to the MN Department of Commerce which said it would accept such input to pass to the legislature; other avenues are also being pursued.
<< <i>NN published a third article for July on the MN law today, July 21, 2014: Link >>
I find it odd that the NN would write an article about the Minnesota law's affect on coin shows, and not mention the law includes a provision relating to coin shows. Specifically, the law exempts anyone that only sells coins at "occasional trade shows." That is especially true since their is so much confusion regarding the vagueness of that provision.
find it odd that the NN would write an article about the Minnesota law's affect on coin shows, and not mention the law includes a provision relating to coin shows.
I did talk about that in the interview, particularly in regard to the MOON and Northwest shows, and benefit it may provide to out of state dealers that only do those two coin shows in MN, but they did not make it into the article. Although "occasional"is not defined in the statute, the people enforcing the law as recently as yesterday put the number at 2, but not completely ruling out up to 4. While their interpretation may not be correct, it is my understanding that is their current position; which is the same position they had at the MOON show last fall.
<< <i> find it odd that the NN would write an article about the Minnesota law's affect on coin shows, and not mention the law includes a provision relating to coin shows.
I did talk about that in the interview, particularly in regard to the MOON and Northwest shows, and benefit it may provide to out of state dealers that only do those two coin shows in MN, but they did not make it into the article. Although "occasional"is not defined in the statute, the people enforcing the law as recently as yesterday put the number at 2, but not completely ruling out up to 4. While their interpretation may not be correct, it is my understanding that is their current position; which is the same position they had at the MOON show last fall. >>
Not defined in Minnesota Statutes §80G but its dictionary definition is “happening or done sometimes but not often, not happening or done in a regular or frequent way.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, m-w.com, and “occurring, appearing, or done infrequently and irregularly.” OxfordDictionaries.com
Comments
<< <i>100! >>
Hey TDN, how is Legend going to handle this. I would image that one coin sold to a MN resident will put you all over the threshold. Do you all intend to register, not sell to MN residents, or ignore the regulation? Inquiring minds...
Of course a public answer to this question may not be wise, then what are your personal thoughts...off the record of course.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
Total Entities Registered: 43 (excluding aliases)
Minnesota Entities Registered: 41(excluding aliases)
Entities Registered From Other States: 2 (excluding aliases); one located in New Hampshire and one located in Louisiana
Total Number of Representatives of Registered Entities: 481; one of the firms has 228 representatives
<< <i>The latest registration data from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (COB on 7/10/14):
Total Entities Registered: 43 (excluding aliases)
Minnesota Entities Registered: 41(excluding aliases)
Entities Registered From Other States: 2 (excluding aliases); one located in New Hampshire and one located in Louisiana
Total Number of Representatives of Registered Entities: 481; one of the firms has 228 representatives >>
New hampshire? Isn't Littleton coin there?
Lafayette Grading Set
<< <i>
<< <i>The latest registration data from the Minnesota Department of Commerce (COB on 7/10/14):
Total Entities Registered: 43 (excluding aliases)
Minnesota Entities Registered: 41(excluding aliases)
Entities Registered From Other States: 2 (excluding aliases); one located in New Hampshire and one located in Louisiana
Total Number of Representatives of Registered Entities: 481; one of the firms has 228 representatives >>
New hampshire? Isn't Littleton coin there?
Bingo! Littleton registered.
If you are interested in searching for the folks that registered you can find it at
https://www.pulseportal.com/
In the "Choose a program" field select "Minnesota Department of Commerce"
In the " Choose a Board" field select "Bullion Coin Dealers"
Then click on "Search Licensees"
You can then search on two different kinds of licensees. The business' main license, and then the individuals license. In this law the business must register, and any employee that interacts with customers selling or buying coins must register.
A few days ago I talked with the guy taking in registrations at the MN Department of Commerce. He said that he has had conversations with the Home Shopping Network, but they have not yet gotten the application. That ought to be an interesting one to see, I bet they will have many hundreds of "coin dealer representatives." It should be interesting for them, they now have to do annual background check, and pay an annual fee to Minnesota, for people they probably pay very little.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Libertarian arguments essentially boil down to let the free market decide. Just like we as a people decided on capitalism, we also decided to have a country of laws. I agree that many laws are insane and serve no purpose or are overly intrusive. The sodomy laws come quickly to mind. Our politicians pass laws in response to problems. Do the laws always fix the problem? No. Does that mean we should have no laws? No! We will always try to fix a problem in response to a perceived or real problem.
I go back to my original point. Our current economic system allows for corporations to lobby against laws by "persuading" with money, politicians to pass or not pass laws. These laws may or may not be what is best for us as a society on the whole. Usually they are what is best for the corporations bottom line. Not so much they are for the good of society. If our system was moral or just, the laws would not favor the corporations who pay the lobbyists. Is it legal? Sure. Is it a good thing? I don't believe so.
Where a problem exists.... say slavery, when a government tries to eliminate it, there will be anger. No one wants less profits. But, sometimes those laws are the right thing to do, even though they result in REGULATION!
Let me assure you, the financial planning industry in many cases is just geared to extracting money slowly from people without actually helping them. I have seen this over and over again over 35 years in my tax practice. It is not "rare" to see an estate depleted by banks, brokerage firms, and lawyers.
No, I am not equating slavery to regulating coin dealers. I merely make the bigger point that laws and regulations must be part of a healthy capitalist system even if at times the laws are not effective.
Tom, I did not see you on the list of registered entities ... are you in the process of registering?
<< <i>If you are interested in searching for the folks that registered you can find it at
Tom, I did not see you on the list of registered entities ... are you in the process of registering? >>
I went to the Minnesota Department of Commerce's website, and went through the steps to determine if I needed to register. Turns out I do not.
Here is a link to the criteria for anyone that might be curious.
http://mn.gov/commerce/licensees/bullion-coin-dealer-license/bullion-coin-dealer-instruction.jsp
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
<< <i>100! >>
This type of Minnesota law will be spreading next to a state near you .. this type of law will only expand more in other blue states
This is a concern. In talking to "Joe" and "Jane" public, people unfamiliar with numismatic, about this law, some did not see the problem with the law and thought is was a good idea. They analogized it to other business regulations they were familiar with where they thought regulation was a good thing. Once they made this connection, they really did not hear what the MN Bullion Coin Dealer law was about or care to further listen. To them it appeared as just another set of business people complaining about regulations. I've seen this reaction many times in the law. When the audience for the message acts this way, it doesn't matter who is right, the fact is they are not listening or care to understand which leads to the same result. In law, fortunately an appeals court often does listen in regard to the law and reverses, but in public opinion and politics, which can lead to or create laws, the result can be different. And most politicians that create these laws are not numismatist, or have any idea about how the industry as a whole works ...
Tomorrow we'll see first hand the impact this law may have on the small shows as the first MN show since this law went into full effect starts at 8:30 am ...
I don't think you will find anyone on this forum that thinks we should have no laws. In the US all coins must be authorized by congress, no laws would mean no coins.
"I go back to my original point. Our current economic system allows for corporations to lobby against laws by "persuading" with money, politicians to pass or not pass laws. These laws may or may not be what is best for us as a society on the whole. Usually they are what is best for the corporations bottom line. Not so much they are for the good of society. If our system was moral or just, the laws would not favor the corporations who pay the lobbyists. Is it legal? Sure. Is it a good thing? I don't believe so."
In your original post you assume corporations are opposing this MN Coin Bullion Dealer legislation. That is not the case as a matter of fact the president of a large Minnesota Numismatic company argued in favor of this law. He even said in his testimony before the MN legislature that he helped write the Bill.
"Where a problem exists.... say slavery, when a government tries to eliminate it, there will be anger. No one wants less profits. But, sometimes those laws are the right thing to do, even though they result in REGULATION!"
In your original post, you were assuming that all regulations passed are good regulations. I think we can all agree that the Fugitive Slave Act was bad legislation. My point is don't just assume that if a politician tells you a law is good and designed to protect consumers, that the law will actually do that. Look at the law itself does it make sense? Ask yourself who is supporting the law, who is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of the law. Are consumers really going to be better off in the end?
"Let me assure you, the financial planning industry in many cases is just geared to extracting money slowly from people without actually helping them. I have seen this over and over again over 35 years in my tax practice. It is not "rare" to see an estate depleted by banks, brokerage firms, and lawyers."
When the whole story about the MN Coin Bullion dealer law comes out, we will have to come back to this. your statement is actually quit prophetic.
"No, I am not equating slavery to regulating coin dealers. I merely make the bigger point that laws and regulations must be part of a healthy capitalist system even if at times the laws are not effective."
As you can probably tell by reading my earlier posts, I have done a lot of research on this Minnesota Coin Bullion dealer law. I have listened to every minute of testimony before both the Minnesota House and Senate. I have studied the provisions of the law and determined who the winners and losers are likely to be. There is a lot more to this law than what meets the eye. I think if you carefully study this bill, you will be very much against it. I think we all agree that their can be good regulations, the problem is this one is not a good regulation. It is rotten to the core.
Another thing you assumed is that the people who are opposing this law are doing so for financial reasons, from my experience the opposite is true. I know a dealer that is really excited for this law. He sees the law increasing his bottom line by forcing some of his competitors out of the business, and forcing other competitors to stop selling to Minnesota residents. I know other dealers who know they would personally benefit from the law, but are still against it. They are against it because they know the biggest loser in the law will be coin collectors, and the hobby as a whole. These dealers are not against it for financial reasons, but because they care more about the hobby then they do about money. How ironic since isn't this hobby all about money.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I like the tone of your post and you seemed well informed. I take your points. My point was just to moderate what I felt seemed to be a gut reactions from some of the posters earlier that All government is bad, all regulations hurt business. You know, the black and white thinking. Too many people today are in love with slogans and don't try to actually be constructive when there is a problem. Although I sympathize with that sentiment when bad laws are passed, I wanted to make the point that there are regulations and laws which do serve a purpose and work, sometimes.
H Ross Perot said we should get under the hood and fix problems. Try them out in test markets and if they work, do it nationally. I agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, politicians almost never do this. It is our loss as citizens. As I do not know many details of this coin law in Minnesota, I will abstain from judgment one way or the other.
As mentioned above, the first Minnesota coin show since the law discussed in this thread went into full effect is going on today. It is the smallest of the 3 monthly shows in terms of # of dealers that attend. Of the 11 dealers attending today, 4 were registered under the law, 3 are in the process of registering, and 4 unregistered and appear to be doing business as usual. Only one out of state sealer attending- he is in the process of registering. While the Minnesota Sales Tax people have visited this show before, the Minnesota Department of Commerce did not show up today. The public turnout was good.
The next monthly Minnesota Show is July 27, 2014- typically there are about 25 dealers that set up for that show.
edited to add: A few collectors were disappointed that one dealer in particular after 30 years or so of doing shows, and now was just doing shows part time, was no longer doing shows or otherwise dealing as a result of this law. Near the end of the show a few collectors that had heard about the law expressed frustration with the law and had concerns and questions about who they could legally buy coins from and sell coins to, including if it applied to collectors selling coins to each other. The MN Department of commerce has been asked to provide examples of transactions regarding the law and which require registration, but they have not responded yet. Some have read the page at : Link and asked the same question.
<< <i>Here is how it works.
You have a profitable bullion telemarketing business but all those pesky "We buy gold" places spring up and start cutting into your buying profits. The local coin dealers are also selling silver and gold they get in fairly cheaply, also cutting into your profits as a bullion telemarketer.
You donate $25K to a state Senator and get some people to complain about shady bullion dealers. You offer to help the Senator craft a bill to put onerous rules in place - ones that you can afford to abide by, but the small guys can't. Promote the bill in the name of "public safety". Anyone who fights against this public safety bill is labeled a shady dealer and is suspect in the eyes of the legislature. They won't listen to you.
The bill becomes law and soon all your pesky competition is gone.
How can you fight this? Not easy. You can't pressure the Legislators much as they are on the side of "public safety". Who would vote against that?
Politics as usual. >>
Disgusting.
link
July 16, 2014 NN Article
edited to add: Be careful in trying to understand the MN law from the "Coins Weekly" article linked above as there are a number of errors in it. It looks like it may have been written based on content from the Department of Commerce website rather than on the law itself. Potions of the website are less clear than the law itself. For example, parts of the the descriptions of "80G.07 PROHIBITED CONDUCT" in the article don't seem to match the law itself. Another part of the article that may lead to a misunderstanding of the law is the discussion of " if they sell coins to Minnesota worth $5,000 or more". While that statement is true, it is not limited to the sale. The $5000 threshold can be buy, sell, or a combination of buy and sell in the 12-month period (i.e., add up all the buy and sell transactions for transactions of bullion coins covered by the in the 12-month period).
<< <i>Here is the latest NN article on the topic:
July 16, 2014 NN Article
edited to add: Be careful in trying to understand the MN law from the "Coins Weekly" article linked above as there are a number of errors in it. It looks like it may have been written based on content from the Department of Commerce website rather than on the law itself. Potions of the website are less clear than the law itself. For example, parts of the the descriptions of "80G.07 PROHIBITED CONDUCT" in the article don't seem to match the law itself. Another part of the article that may lead to a misunderstanding of the law is the discussion of " if they sell coins to Minnesota worth $5,000 or more". While that statement is true, it is not limited to the sale. The $5000 threshold can be buy, sell, or a combination of buy and sell in the 12-month period (i.e., add up all the buy and sell transactions for transactions of bullion coins covered by the in the 12-month period).
q]
This was a very interesting article, and I have a number of comments:
From the article, "It really hurts small dealers, he said, because it doesn’t take much to hit that threshold. “If they crafted it so person-to-person transactions were exempt, that would have helped,” Allen said. I think Greg Allen was spot on here. When testifying before the Minnesota Legislature the Assistant Attorney General said that all the issues that prompted the law, all involved telemarketers. In earlier testimony, the Assistant AG said they tried to narrowly focus the law to just address the issues they saw. So why didn't they exempt in person transactions??? That is something he could not answer, it is inexplicable.
Secondly, the comments made by the president of the Midwest Bullion exchange, Scott Hage's, really prove the main point I have been making on this board. This law was not designed for consumer protection but to get the little guy, Hage's competition, out of business. From the NN article above,'Hage said it would have a good effect on numismatic business in Minnesota. “I think its going to keep people out of the business who probably shouldn’t be in the business in the first place,” Hage said. A dealer who can’t afford to be bonded probably shouldn’t be in the business anyway, Hage said.'
I have a lot to say about another one of Greg Allen's comments, '“In talking with local dealers, particularly small dealers and some large dealers, I heard them repeat what they thought the law says and, compared to what I think the law says, there’s confusion,” Allen said.' I thing this quote from Greg is also right on. I would add that a lot of that confusion is coming from the very poor wording of the law, and the use of contradictory and vague language. Not only are the dealers confused, so is the Department of Commerce, I know a dealer that asked them the same question multiple times, and got a different answer each time.
The part of the law that seems to be creating the most confusion is the part that exempts coin shows. Specifically, Minn. Stat. 80G.1 Sub 3.5, of the law specially exempts from all provisions of the law, "a person who engages only in transactions at occasional trade shows where the consumer is present and the transaction is made at the trade show"
Some dealers think this means if you do more than 2 shows a year, you have to register, some think it is a different number. Still others think both of those interpretations are wrong, because the "occasional" is modifying the tradeshow. They reason this means a dealer can do any number of different coin shows, just so long as the particular operator of the coin show only runs the show on occasion. If you interpret this provision using proper grammatical constructs, this last interpretation would be correct. Of course ether interpretation is irrelevant unless you know what "occasional" means.
The law does not specifically define the term "occasional." When the Department of Commerce was first asked about this at a dealer meeting last October, they said they did not know yet, but if you setup just 2 times a year you would be fine. Later they said you are fine just so long as the show is not something that is set up continuously. When the final guidance came out on their website, they just said, look in the dictionary to see what occasional means. So they basically said they are not going to provide any guidance on what that means. Early on they were clearly tossing around ideas to determine how to interpret "occasional" but later, probably after consulting with the department lawyers, they decided the law does not allow them to set a specific number to "occasional." Now if the department does not know what "occasional" means, than how are they supposed to enforce that against someone? The answer is they cannot. How is someone going to know if they do too many shows or do shows that are organized too frequently? They answer is they cannot know ahead of time.
If the Department of Commerce tried to prosecute a dealer because they did too many coin shows, or a coin show that took place too often, it would be a clear, text book, example of violating someone's 5th and 14th amendment due process rights. The courts have time and time again struck down laws, if a reasonable person cannot determine what they need to do to comply. The Department of Commerce knows this, that is why they are not going to waste any time trying to enforce this against a dealer that just does coin shows, and is not registered with them. The last thing they want is a test case for this law to hinge on what "occasional" means. They know if the test case did, they would run a serious risk of the whole law being struck down on due process grounds.
The "occasional" issue is just one example of the vague and contradictory language in the law. Another example is the use of the word, "consumer." Similar to the above issue the Department of Commerce punted and said look in the dictionary for the definition of "consumer." The problem is Webster dictionary defines consumer as, "a person that buys goods." "Consumer." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 July 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumer>, yet provisions of the law talk about a coin dealer "buying" from a consumer. What??? If you buy from someone, they are not a consumer be definition, this law makes no sense.
The problem is the confusion is causing a lot of problems in the Minnesota coin industry. Many dealers both small and large have folded up shop. Their have also been a lot of dealer who have stayed away from coin shows, even though the law exempts coin shows it is the perception that matters. I am confident this law will be challenged, and eventually struck down on any number of grounds, but how much damage will be done before that happens? I also wonder how much money this law will cost the taxpayers of Minnesota. When this law is stuck down, the state of Minnesota will likely be responsible for all the attorney's fees on both sides of the case. That is what happened a few years back when Minnesota tried to regulate the video game industry. How much of a hit will the taxpayers have to take, just because the legislature and the Attorney General, don't know how to write a law that can hold up to a constitutional test.
Of course you will need to study the facts and come up with your own conclusion, but these are mine.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I loved it! For all the gruff they get from us for being wacky. I love their @$%@$% you to the policies dictated down from above.
100% Positive BST transactions
Has anyone else heard about anyone receiving a similar e-mail?
David, I sent it earlier today.
<< <i>I read about this law recently, and it sounds like they used a nuke instead of a sniper to solve a problem. They surely could have written this law in such a way that it would have shut down the bad guys, and not the hobby as a whole. They should have tailored this to stop those idiot national dealers who sell tribute pieces, clad in 14 microns of pure 24k gold.
The ones who advertise that their tribute buffaloes are normally sold at the National Collectors Mint (small print next to this will say "in no way affiliated with the national government or the US Mint") for $50 apiece. However, during this limited time offer you can get get your tribute pieces for a mere $9.99, plus shipping, processing, packaging and handing ($9.99 per coin for each of those items - shipping, processing, packaging and handling). Limit for this limited time offer is 5 tribute pieces per household. Don't delay. If you are unsatisfied for any reason, just return the coin unopened, and we will refund the purchase price, you just pay shipping, processing, packaging and handling, and a 15% restocking fee. Additionally, you will be sent a National Collectors Mint item each month for inspection. If you do not like the items, just return it within our reasonable inspection period (5 hours). Unreturned items will be charged to your credit card, plus shipping, processing, packaging and handling. >>
Since these "coins" are gold plated, I do not think they even qualify for consideration under the law which requires more than 1% by weight of precious metal content per coin. Certainly a .001 layer of gold on a buffalo sized coin does not equal 1% of the weight of the coin.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Thanks for alerting folks to this, Bill. From a cursory look, it appears to be well intentioned, but grossly misdirected and just plain stupid.
Hope it gets repealed. >>
The definition of government as practiced in America...in a nutshell.
Pun intended
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I am not intending to make a controversial post but here is my thought on the topic:
The NRA fights for the rights of gun owners across the country and are quite successful at defending the 2nd amendment. We have an organization that represents the numismatic community called the ANA. I think this could be an awesome opportunity for the ANA to step in and actually make a difference. They should have the political clout to at least be heard in Minnesota. I propose the ANA Board of Governors send a representative to the state capital in Minnesota armed with the inherent problems this law creates. They could also provide suggested amendments that would satisfy the numismatic community.
I hear so many people say that the ANA is a waste of money. This is the type of thing I would like to see the ANA spend some time and effort on. Protecting the hobby. >>
I totally agree.
Laura??
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Does the U. S. Mint have to comply with that law? >>
Technically, No since they only manufacture the bullion and coins.
However, Novitex, the company which actually "sells and distributes" the products of the US Mint, should be required to comply with the law "by" the US Mint.
Remember, Novitex is only a "subcontractor" hired by the US Mint to distribute its products. Employees of Novitex are NOT US Government employees such as those the work for the Treasury Department.
Back in 2005, the distribution company contracted by the US Mint was located in Memphis Tennessee. In 2006, a new contract was implemented with PBGS (Pitney-Bowes Government Services) out of Plainview, Indiana. PBGS was recently renamed to Novitex.
Edited isnce I'm too used to typing PCGS instead of PBGS.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>“The origin of this law was a reaction by the Attorney General’s office to articles written in the Star Tribune,” Orr said. “The articles were about people being ripped off when looking to buy coins. The articles labeled them as bad coin dealers when they were telemarketers. Not one was a coin store or dealer who sold openly. If it wasn’t for the articles, there would be no legislation.” >>
Another reason I have a strong dislike of Journalists who do their research but have absolutely no idea about what they are writing about!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>The MN Department of Commerce is in the process of identifying unregistered dealers that they believe fall under the law. I became aware of two instances yesterday where MN Department of Commerce sent e-mails about activity they found, referenced the law, included a Tesseen Warning letter, and asked the recipient to contact them. Before posting, I waited to see copies of the e-mail and Tesseen Warning letter to verify the content.
Has anyone else heard about anyone receiving a similar e-mail? >>
If anyone is curious as to what a Tennessen Warning Letter is, I found this description on the Minnesota Department of Administration's Information Policy Analysis Division (ipad) website.
http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/docs/tw.html
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
what does that mean?
<< <i>
<< <i>Does the U. S. Mint have to comply with that law? >>
Technically, No since they only manufacture the bullion and coins.
However, Novitex, the company which actually "sells and distributes" the products of the US Mint, should be required to comply with the law "by" the US Mint.
Remember, Novitex is only a "subcontractor" hired by the US Mint to distribute its products. Employees of Novitex are NOT US Government employees such as those the work for the Treasury Department.
Back in 2005, the distribution company contracted by the US Mint was located in Memphis Tennessee. In 2006, a new contract was implemented with PBGS (Pitney-Bowes Government Services) out of Plainview, Indiana. PCGS was recently renamed to Novitex. >>
This is an interesting point, but I am not sure the US Mint is in the clear. Do they have any involvement at all with the sales process? I would guess they do since when I order, I am ordering from a ".gov" url. Anyone have any insight as to what point in the ordering process I am dealing with the mint, and at what point I am dealing with a contractor?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Does the U. S. Mint have to comply with that law? >>
Technically, No since they only manufacture the bullion and coins.
However, Novitex, the company which actually "sells and distributes" the products of the US Mint, should be required to comply with the law "by" the US Mint.
Remember, Novitex is only a "subcontractor" hired by the US Mint to distribute its products. Employees of Novitex are NOT US Government employees such as those the work for the Treasury Department.
Back in 2005, the distribution company contracted by the US Mint was located in Memphis Tennessee. In 2006, a new contract was implemented with PBGS (Pitney-Bowes Government Services) out of Plainview, Indiana. PCGS was recently renamed to Novitex. >>
This is an interesting point, but I am not sure the US Mint is in the clear. Do they have any involvement at all with the sales process? I would guess they do since when I order, I am ordering from a ".gov" url. Anyone have any insight as to what point in the ordering process I am dealing with the mint, and at what point I am dealing with a contractor? >>
dot gov or not, when you contact the US Mint through that website, you're contacting a government contractor that actually works for Novitex.
The name is LEE!
<< <i> PCGS was recently renamed to Novitex.
what does that mean? >>
It means that somebody can't figure simple things out.
The name is LEE!
The next shop I stopped at was a big regional chain in our area, (26 locations in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin). I had noticed on-line that they had the Coin Bullion Dealer license, so I figured they would be selling coins there. When I went there and asked for coins, but the person their said the only person in the store authorized to show or sell coins was out, so I would have to try again on a different day. See did add that others in her store would be authorized at some point but they first had to "go through training."
The third shop I went to was owned by a major national pawn chain. They had a 1/10 ounce maple for sale, and a pendant with a 1/20 ounce isle of Man gold coin in it. I asked the manager what he thought of the new coin bullion dealer law, he said that it was a good idea that helped protect consumers. He added that all he had to do was some added receipt requirements. I asked about the annual license, and background checks, he had to get for all of his employee's. He got a blank look on his face, he clearly had no idea what the regulations entailed.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>How ironic someone is licensed to buy/sell guns, buy/sell jewelry, but cannot buy/sell coins. Didn't realize coins were so dangerous. >>
Out of the ones listed, coins may be the most dangerous to one's financial well-being given the incidents mentioned.
It's unfortunate but people have been losing what can amount to a substantial portion of the life savings.
<< <i>
<< <i>How ironic someone is licensed to buy/sell guns, buy/sell jewelry, but cannot buy/sell coins. Didn't realize coins were so dangerous. >>
Out of the ones listed, coins may be the most dangerous to one's financial well-being. >>
That's primarily due to credit cards, not precious metal.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I've seen that look on a number of faces lately. Sometimes it is because they misunderstood parts of the law and think it is more onerous than it is; but most often it is because they misunderstood the law and do not appreciate how onerous it is or that it may apply to them.
On the post I made earlier about the MN Department of Commerce contacting at least two sellers, one surprise was that the offers for sale they flagged were well below the $5000 12-month combined purchases and sales, and alone would not require registration. The letter said they wished to discuss the seller's situation relative to the law.
Yes, let's hope it does not spread, and that this MN law gets reigned in or repealed.
A number of suggestions to focus the law more on the problem area highlighted for its purpose have been provided to the MN Department of Commerce which said it would accept such input to pass to the legislature; other avenues are also being pursued.
<< <i>NN published a third article for July on the MN law today, July 21, 2014: Link >>
I find it odd that the NN would write an article about the Minnesota law's affect on coin shows, and not mention the law includes a provision relating to coin shows. Specifically, the law exempts anyone that only sells coins at "occasional trade shows." That is especially true since their is so much confusion regarding the vagueness of that provision.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I did talk about that in the interview, particularly in regard to the MOON and Northwest shows, and benefit it may provide to out of state dealers that only do those two coin shows in
MN, but they did not make it into the article. Although "occasional"is not defined in the statute, the people enforcing the law as recently as yesterday put the number at 2, but not completely ruling out up to 4. While their interpretation may not be correct, it is my understanding that is their current position; which is the same position they had at the MOON show last fall.
<< <i> find it odd that the NN would write an article about the Minnesota law's affect on coin shows, and not mention the law includes a provision relating to coin shows.
I did talk about that in the interview, particularly in regard to the MOON and Northwest shows, and benefit it may provide to out of state dealers that only do those two coin shows in
MN, but they did not make it into the article. Although "occasional"is not defined in the statute, the people enforcing the law as recently as yesterday put the number at 2, but not completely ruling out up to 4. While their interpretation may not be correct, it is my understanding that is their current position; which is the same position they had at the MOON show last fall. >>
If that is their position they don't seem to be sharing that publicly, and I have never seen them put any particular number in writing. Their website still says look in the dictionary. Here is an excerpt from their website, http://mn.gov/commerce/licensees/bullion-coin-dealer-license/ bullion-coin-glossary.jsp
• Occasional
Not defined in Minnesota Statutes §80G but its dictionary definition is “happening or done sometimes but not often, not happening or done in a regular or frequent way.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, m-w.com, and “occurring, appearing, or done infrequently and irregularly.” OxfordDictionaries.com
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.